Immanuel the Messiah. Why are people so slack to read Isaiah 7:14 and Daniel 9:26

Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

The name Jesus is no where to found in the prophecies of the Old Testament.

The name Immanuel is found to be the name that was given to God's Son when he was born........ And for those of you who say Jesus means Saviour,then understand that when the Messiah was born he was called ''Saviour'' by his guardian parents as part of recognition that he was the choosen one to save people from their sins. Yet he was given the name Immanuel as his personal birth name to complete the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14....

Yet your answer in your quote says... The answer is simple. The translators didn't consider the other verses to refer to Christ........ So who is Christ if indeed the word as you say means the same thing? You are saying there's no difference in the name but the translators are saying there is a difference to whom gets called ''Messiah''.

So who gets called the Messiah in reference to God's Son?

Jesus was called "the Christ." That doesn't contradict the fact that Greek WORD "christos" corresponds to the Hebrew WORD "messiah." Anyone who can read can understand that "Christ" refers to Jesus in the appropriate contexts of the NT. But we know it doesn't always refer to Jesus because Jesus spoke of false Christs. It's so simple. What's there not to understand?

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

The name Jesus is no where to found in the prophecies of the Old Testament.

The name Immanuel is found to be the name that was given to God's Son when he was born........ And for those of you who say Jesus means Saviour,then understand that when the Messiah was born he was called ''Saviour'' by his guardian parents as part of recognition that he was the choosen one to save people from their sins. Yet he was given the name Immanuel as his personal birth name to complete the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14....

So he was called Immanuel the Saviour . It's all true.

He was not "given the name Immanuel as his personal birth name." You just made that up. There is no verse that says that. Matthew was merely quoting the prophecy, he didn't say a word about anyone actually giving him that name.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

Jesus was called "the Christ." That doesn't contradict the fact that Greek WORD "christos" corresponds to the Hebrew WORD "messiah." Anyone who can read can understand that "Christ" refers to Jesus in the appropriate contexts of the NT. But we know it doesn't always refer to Jesus because Jesus spoke of false Christs. It's so simple. What's there not to understand?

The false messiahs are about people claiming to be the Messiah....... As explained there is only one designated person to be the Messiah.

He was not "given the name Immanuel as his personal birth name." You just made that up. There is no verse that says that. Matthew was merely quoting the prophecy, he didn't say a word about anyone actually giving him that name.

As Isaiah says,to whom has the arm of Lord been revealed to,and who has believed our report?

The prophet Isaiah foretold of the sign of a young woman virgin giving birth to a man child and they will call him Immanuel...... You have the problem Richard,for when you were a Christian you claimed to know the truth,and when you departed from being a Christian,you claim to know the truth...

So in whatever you do Richard you claim it to be the truth.You believe you yourself to be truth. How flawed and vain you are.

As Isaiah says,to whom has the arm of Lord been revealed to,and who has believed our report?

The prophet Isaiah foretold of the sign of a young woman virgin giving birth to a man child and they will call him Immanuel...... You have the problem Richard,for when you were a Christian you claimed to know the truth,and when you departed from being a Christian,you claim to know the truth...

So in whatever you do Richard you claim it to be the truth.You believe you yourself to be truth. How flawed and vain you are.

I don't "claim to know the truth." I just give logic and facts supporting the things I say. I did this when I was a Christian, and I do it now. Nothing has changed. If you can show that I've erred, I am happy to admit it. Only a fool would hold on to error after it has been exposed.

The difference between you and me is that you just make assertions and state opinions without any support from logic and facts.

The fact that Isaiah "foretold of the sign of a young woman virgin giving birth to a man child and they will call him Immanuel" does not mean that it actually happened that way in a literal sense. Jesus was "Immanuel" in the sense explained by Matthew. He was "God with us." It is an error of hyper-literalism to assert that anyone ever actually called him "Immanuel." The fact that there is not a single word in the entire Bible where anyone ever called Jesus Immanuel shows that you have no basis for your assertion.

And besides all that, you are directly contradicting the text. The angel commanded Jospeph to give him the name Jesus, not Immanuel.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The name Immanuel was simply a symbolic name. You have NO EVIDENCE that anyone actually called him by that name, and I have all the evidence in the world that he was called Jesus, in obedience to the angel.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

No where in the New Covenant does it say there are many or any messiahs except for Immanuel. Even the people who were anointed with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament were not called messiahs....

You and others are stating there are lesser and greater messiahs in the New Testament. There is only one who has been given the title Messiah,and that means ''Anointed of YHVH''...

By your words which can't be trusted because you are a mere man, you are saying that Saint Apostle Peter was a messiah because of being anointed by the Holy Spirit...

The truth is in scripture it says the disciples can be Messiah minded or Messiah in likeness,nothing is said about the saints being called ''a lesser messiah'' under the Messiah...

So Richard,it's no wonder why your idea of a bible wheel is in your own mixed up mind. I sincerely hope you get well.

I think you keep this website up because you can't let go of your failing in your Bible wheel deception.

Your statement is false. I have never said that there were "lesser and greater messiahs in the New Testament."

What's you point in all this? We agree that the NT says Jesus was the unique Messiah.

The word Messiah does NOT mean "Anointed of YHVH." Why do you keep saying that? It is totally and absolutely false, and that's why you cannot support it with any logic or facts. You merely say the same thing over and over again, but you have never given anyone any reason to think you are right. The word "messiah" means anointed. Period. It is applied to uniquely to Jesus as the uniquely anointed one, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Many other terms are uniquely applied to Jesus, such as the Son of Man. So what is your point?

And your statement that I said "Saint Apostle Peter was a messiah because of being anointed by the Holy Spirit" is false because that's not how the NT used the word "Messiah." It is used as a unique reference to Jesus, just like the terms Son of Man and the Lamb of God and the Son of God and the Word and the Light of the World. The word "Messiah" is just one of many titles uniquely applied to Jesus.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

I don't "claim to know the truth." I just give logic and facts supporting the things I say. I did this when I was a Christian, and I do it now. Nothing has changed. If you can show that I've erred, I am happy to admit it. Only a fool would hold on to error after it has been exposed.

The difference between you and me is that you just make assertions and state opinions without any support from logic and facts.

The fact that Isaiah "foretold of the sign of a young woman virgin giving birth to a man child and they will call him Immanuel" does not mean that it actually happened that way in a literal sense. Jesus was "Immanuel" in the sense explained by Matthew. He was "God with us." It is an error of hyper-literalism to assert that anyone ever actually called him "Immanuel." The fact that there is not a single word in the entire Bible where anyone ever called Jesus Immanuel shows that you have no basis for your assertion.

And besides all that, you are directly contradicting the text. The angel commanded Jospeph to give him the name Jesus, not Immanuel.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The name Immanuel was simply a symbolic name. You have NO EVIDENCE that anyone actually called him by that name, and I have all the evidence in the world that he was called Jesus, in obedience to the angel.

No. The angel told him to call him ''SAVIOUR'' upon his birth in accordance with the foretelling that he would save people from their sins.

For if you read in Matthew's account how he is called Immanuel to fullfill the prophecy, thus making him Immanuel the Saviour,though he would n't be recognised as Saviour until he was about 30 ... The Gentiles miswrote many things wrong in the New Testament translation... Such as writing in the Greek word called Hades...